Texas Proposal Sparks Debate on Religious Equality and Church-State Separation

People sitting in church pews during service.

Texas legislators are proposing a decade-long “Promise Month” to honor biblical principles, igniting fierce debate about the role of religion in government and whether the resolution crosses constitutional boundaries.

Key Insights

Texas House Concurrent Resolution 59 would designate April as “Promise Month” for 10 years, focusing on God’s promises and biblical principles.
The resolution has bipartisan support with 47 co-sponsors, including 11 Democrats, and is currently pending in committee.
Critics, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, argue the resolution violates church-state separation by elevating Christianity above other faiths.
Supporters point to America’s religious heritage, while opponents see the proposal as part of a broader Christian nationalist agenda in Texas politics.

The Resolution’s Content and Support

House Concurrent Resolution 59, sponsored by Republican State Representative Carrie Isaac, aims to establish April as “Promise Month” for the next ten years in Texas. The resolution contains numerous biblical references and explicitly highlights God’s promises of “eternal life, love, peace, and strength.” It has gathered significant legislative support, with 47 co-sponsors across party lines, including 11 Democrats, indicating some bipartisan appeal despite its religious focus. The resolution is currently awaiting review in committee before potential advancement to a full floor vote.

“The Declaration of Independence clearly reveals the fact that America was founded upon biblical principles and Christian values; the Bible had great influence on the founding of our great nation.” stated in the House Concurrent Resolution 59

This resolution follows previous religious legislation in Texas, including a bill designating a week in April as “Texas Christian Heritage Week.” Similar resolutions have been attempted in other conservative states including Montana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, suggesting a coordinated multistate effort to advance biblical principles in government. The resolution plainly treats biblical accounts as historical fact and emphasizes America’s supposed founding on Christian principles, a claim historians often contest.

Constitutional Concerns Raised

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has emerged as a leading opponent of the resolution, arguing it violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by “effectively endorsing Christianity as the state-sanctioned religion.” Critics emphasize that government initiatives favoring one religion over others can make non-Christian citizens feel like second-class members of society. They point to the resolution as potentially undermining the constitutional principle of religious equality that has been a cornerstone of American governance.

“These government endorsements of Christianity serve a broader purpose,” stated Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president

“They normalize the false narrative perpetuated by extremists that Texas is a Christian state. This is then used to justify passing actual laws rooted in Christian nationalism that take away rights, violate religious freedoms, and cause real harm to those who don’t conform to certain religious beliefs.” stated Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president

Part of a Broader Religious Legislative Agenda

The “Promise Month” resolution appears to be one component of a larger legislative movement in Texas that some observers characterize as increasingly confident Christian nationalism. Recent legislative sessions have seen numerous efforts to increase Christianity’s presence in public schools and government, including bills to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms and allow optional prayer time during school hours. Lawmakers supporting these measures frequently cite concerns about moral decline resulting from the removal of biblical teachings from education.

“Our opposition comes not from a perspective of anti-religion, but pro-Constitution.” expressed Mickey Dollens

Texas has historically served as a testing ground for faith-based policies that sometimes spread to other states or influence federal law. Supporters of these measures have been emboldened by recent court rulings perceived as more accommodating to religious expression in public contexts. The Trump administration previously established initiatives like the White House Faith Office and Religious Liberty Commission, which religious conservatives view as important steps toward preserving America’s spiritual heritage.

Strategic Implementation

Analysis suggests the legislative strategy involves introducing more moderate religious resolutions as a foundation for advancing more substantive policy changes later. By framing these proposals through a historical lens rather than explicitly theological arguments, supporters hope to normalize religious perspectives in government while avoiding immediate constitutional challenges. Texas lawmakers express confidence in both the passage and legal sustainability of these faith-affirming resolutions and bills.

Though only a small percentage of Americans explicitly identify as Christian nationalists, their political influence has grown through strategic efforts and financial backing from wealthy donors aligned with the Texas GOP. Critics argue this represents a shift from promoting general “religious freedom” to specifically advancing Christian perspectives in government, potentially at the expense of other faiths and non-religious citizens. The debate continues as the resolution advances through the legislative process.